Interesting reads. It appears the Austro-Hungarian and Russian Governments were hard on the locals. Deporting all the Priests to Russia was not a good thing. Having the schools teach in Russian was not a friendly act. I hope the people here find peace and self government, note I did not say Ukrainian or Russian.

Claiming that there is some ethnic Ukrainians is like claiming htat htere is ethnic Americans (native Americans excluded) or that there is ethnic Belgians. As a nation and citizenship they exist but as ehtnic group they do not.

Etmos,
I am bewildered trying to follow your concept of nationality vs ethnicity as it pertains to the rule of ethnicity over nationality in determining individual sovereignty.
I have documentation that my male decedents arrived from Holland in NA c1660. He was 14 generations ago for me, 16th generations for my Grandchildren. Yet, according to your philosophy, I am not an ethnic American? OK, maybe I’m Dutch. However, if you back up another 350 years, I could be a Frank, Saxon, Spanish etc.. Go back another 350 years and I very easily could be Nordic or Celtic. However, as we all know, the historical invasions of those areas still leaves me in doubt.

In your opinion what could be my ethnicity? Where would I be able to vote according to it?
Perhaps the difference is that the area under discussion has never been inundated with other ethnic groups.

A story to illustrate what I mean: A man born in Odessa in 1900 of Russian ethnicity was also a citizen of the Russian Empire, then at the end of the revolution and civil war he became a citizen of the Soviet Union and lived in an administrative area called the Ukranian SSR, but he was still an ethnic Russian. Living to a very old age, in 1991 he suddenly found he was now living in some new country called Ukraine and somebody thrust a Ukranian passport in his hand and told him he was a Ukranian, but he wasn't, he was still an ethnic Russian. His great great grandchildren today are told they are Ukranian, but only by passport, for they are still ethnic Russians living in their homeland. On the other hand, a person living in Lvov/Lviv/Lwow/Lemberg and anywere else in western Ukraine who is not an ethnic Russian can be whatever they want to be, Ukranian, Ruthenian, Rusyn, Pole, Austrian, Hungarian, Martian, Klingon, anything, as long as they don't try to enforce this "Ukranianess" on those who do not want it, but they do, and here we are in a nightmare.

There's another classic. It's a Hungarian version of this.

A man in Hungary was interviewed about his life towards the end of the 20th c. by an American journalist. The man explained he was born in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, went to school in Czechoslovakia, but finished his studies in Hungary. He then spent quite some time in the Soviet Union, before retiring in Hungary.

Impressed by how well-travelled the man was, the newspaperman asked him to further elaborate on his movements, only to be told: "Oh no! I've never left my home town."

This is a general Central European story.

That it's now also a Russian and Ukranian story really only tells us an empire has disolved.

The big question is what anyone is going to try to do about the empire no longer existing?

One is to try to resurrect it.

Another is for the people "who have always been living here" to go with the present political entity and create a nation state.

It's like what Ernest Renan said already in the 19th c.: "A nation is a daily plebiscite."

And that's why separatism is also in the cards — especially is instigated and supported from outside.

And incidentally it also tells us that even if the Soviet Union might not by definition have been a Russian empire, then the present ghost of it as somehow desirable IS a Russian notion. The Soviet Union in it's afterlife has become a Russian project.

There's not going to be a UUSR.2. If anything empire-looking comes about, it's simply going to be a Russian bit empire-building now.

And part of that is that there are apparent deficits in how Russia thinks of itself as a nation state, in a world defined by soverign nation states.

It means battling against 400 years of international politics, on behalf of supra-national idea of empire — which paradoxically looks to be what is going to be what defines a Russian sense of nationhood in a negative sense, since it's what offsets it from other nations. (Russia, the people with an empire lording it over people not Russian...)

Ukraine however — win, lose or draw — will be defined by struggling against Russia, to not be a back-lot in some kind of Russian imperial vision. It's usually how nations appear in history. Whatever the components of peope who "have always been living in this village", the decisive bit is when it becomes apparent that there's going to have to a taking of sides, and for all the diversity of background and identity, there's an external threat that pushes them together as people with a common destiny, like it or not, being forced upon them by events.

It's how it happened with the Finns, including the not wanting to be a back-lot in someone else's project even.
Old Armfeldt put it thus after 1809: "We are no longer Swedish. We have no wish to be Russian. So let us then be Finnish." Of course, he said that in Swedish, just to point to the complexity of the situation.

Poroshenko could paraphrase that: "We are no longer Soviet. We have no wish to be Russian. So let us then be Ukranian." And by rights he should be saying that in Russian.

A man in Hungary was interviewed about his life towards the end of the 20th c. by an American journalist. The man explained he was born in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, went to school in Czechoslovakia, but finished his studies in Hungary. He then spent quite some time in the Soviet Union, before retiring in Hungary.

Impressed by how well-travelled the man was, the newspaperman asked him to further elaborate on his movements, only to be told: "Oh no! I've never left my home town."

This is a general Central European story.

That it's now also a Russian and Ukranian story really only tells us an empire has disolved.

The big question is what anyone is going to try to do about the empire no longer existing?

One is to try to resurrect it.

Another is for the people "who have always been living here" to go with the present political entity and create a nation state.

It's like what Ernest Renan said already in the 19th c.: "A nation is a daily plebiscite."

And that's why separatism is also in the cards — especially is instigated and supported from outside.

And incidentally it also tells us that even if the Soviet Union might not by definition have been a Russian empire, then the present ghost of it as somehow desirable IS a Russian notion. The Soviet Union in it's afterlife has become a Russian project.

There's not going to be a UUSR.2. If anything empire-looking comes about, it's simply going to be a Russian bit empire-building now.

And part of that is that there are apparent deficits in how Russia thinks of itself as a nation state, in a world defined by soverign nation states.

It means battling against 400 years of international politics, on behalf of supra-national idea of empire — which paradoxically looks to be what is going to be what defines a Russian sense of nationhood in a negative sense, since it's what offsets it from other nations. (Russia, the people with an empire lording it over people not Russian...)

Ukraine however — win, lose or draw — will be defined by struggling against Russia, to not be a back-lot in some kind of Russian imperial vision. It's usually how nations appear in history. Whatever the components of peope who "have always been living in this village", the decisive bit is when it becomes apparent that there's going to have to a taking of sides, and for all the diversity of background and identity, there's an external threat that pushes them together as people with a common destiny, like it or not, being forced upon them by events.

It's how it happened with the Finns, including the not wanting to be a back-lot in someone else's project even.
Old Armfeldt put it thus after 1809: "We are no longer Swedish. We have no wish to be Russian. So let us then be Finnish." Of course, he said that in Swedish, just to point to the complexity of the situation.

Poroshenko could paraphrase that: "We are no longer Soviet. We have no wish to be Russian. So let us then be Ukranian." And by rights he should be saying that in Russian.

So, in your post you acknowledge the right of those who see themselves as ethnic Ukranians to be Ukranian and to have their own state, I fully support this. However, nowhere do you acknowledge the right of ethnic Russians in Ukraine to be Russian and, if they desire, to form their own state on their own lands or to join with Russia. Why is this denied them? why should they kowtow to Galicians with no moral or historical claim on the territories known as Novorossiya and Crimea? This is an important point that is consistently ignored and the people of Novorossiya and Crimea swept aside and insulted as simply being some type of Russian "invader". The history and the population of Novorossiya from Kharkov to Odessa show it as Russian, not Galician, and those who argue otherwise should explain why Galicians have any claim to Novorossiya and Crimea and can dictate to them who they are. I never see this, only distractions about Russian "invasions" and USSR/Russian Empire v 2.0 about to happen. There are no homogenous Ukranians, there is and never has been a homogenous Ukraine, that is why we have the situation as it is now, because idiots in the past drew lines on maps that they had no moral right to do. I do not understand why this very simple point is not understood, or, I suspect in most cases, wilfuly ignored. I would like to see a rational argument put forward to state why before 1991 Novorossiya and Crimea were "Ukranian". Plenty of posts here to explain why they were not, but no real counter argument, it is as if for some there was no history in the region before the 1991 collusion between drunks and thieves that created something called Ukraine against the wishes of large amounts of the population who were never allowed to have a say in who they were or in what country they wanted to live in.

Still wait to see my contention that Odessa is Russian not Ukranian, get seriously knocked.

Etmos,
I am bewildered trying to follow your concept of nationality vs ethnicity as it pertains to the rule of ethnicity over nationality in determining individual sovereignty.
I have documentation that my male decedents arrived from Holland in NA c1660. He was 14 generations ago for me, 16th generations for my Grandchildren. Yet, according to your philosophy, I am not an ethnic American? OK, maybe I’m Dutch. However, if you back up another 350 years, I could be a Frank, Saxon, Spanish etc.. Go back another 350 years and I very easily could be Nordic or Celtic. However, as we all know, the historical invasions of those areas still leaves me in doubt.

In your opinion what could be my ethnicity? Where would I be able to vote according to it?
Perhaps the difference is that the area under discussion has never been inundated with other ethnic groups.

The only ethnic Americans for me are the Native Americans, the pre-Columbian civilisations. I consider that to be a distinct ehtnical group, you need to have phenotipical and cultural difference making you clearly different from the other groups. The time for it to occur can largely vary from centuries to millenia. You're the 14th generation American however there are those who arrived in USA only 2 or 3 generations ago. How they can be of the same ethnic group as you since they have a completely different background and time passed in the USA ?

But the question regarding Ukraine stays. If it used to have a major Russian population, why should Russia and Russians renounce to it ? In case of USA you share all a commun historical background, values and way of life. It's not the case of Ukraine where the heroes of one side killed hte heroes of other.

And yet, the American Indians migrated to North America from Asia. So, in effect, they are 'immigrants' also.

Sincerely,
M

__________________
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

Still wait to see my contention that Odessa is Russian not Ukranian, get seriously knocked.

Odessa at the turn of the nineteenth/twentieth century had a majority of people that told the census taker they were Russians. Now the Russians in Odessa are outnumbered by Ukrainians and other ethnic groups. Lots of towns vary over time in their ethnic makeup. At one time New Orleans was mostly French ethnics. Since then the Irish, Germans, Spanish, Italians, Anglo-Americans, and dozens of others moved in. Today it is mostly Black as the Black ethnic groups moved in from the rural areas. New Orleans has evolved into something more than French. It has established its own identity.

Kosovo was once overwhelmingly Serb. Over time the Albanians moved in until the population was overwhelmingly Albanian. The Ukraine has had similar change in its population. The Russians there are now a minority.

It doesn't matter. When russia left the soviet union (before any of the other constituant republics) and subsequently signed a treaty with the sovereign nation of Ukraine recognizing thier borders, they legally renounced all rights to Odessa. It may have ethinic russians living there, it may have ethnic roots, but that's moot, russia already legally ceeded it to Ukraine 20-odd years ago.

Kosovo was once overwhelmingly Serb. Over time the Albanians moved in until the population was overwhelmingly Albanian. The Ukraine has had similar change in its population. The Russians there are now a minority.

The thing is that there were any Ukrainians nor a country called Ukraine....

It doesn't matter. When russia left the soviet union (before any of the other constituant republics) and subsequently signed a treaty with the sovereign nation of Ukraine recognizing thier borders, they legally renounced all rights to Odessa. It may have ethinic russians living there, it may have ethnic roots, but that's moot, russia already legally ceeded it to Ukraine 20-odd years ago.

Nobody teached you that names of all coutnries are written with a capital letter ?

It doesn't matter. When russia left the soviet union (before any of the other constituant republics) and subsequently signed a treaty with the sovereign nation of Ukraine recognizing thier borders, they legally renounced all rights to Odessa. It may have ethinic russians living there, it may have ethnic roots, but that's moot, russia already legally ceeded it to Ukraine 20-odd years ago.

I would call the actions of Lenin in forming the Ukr SSR and Khrushchev in handing Crimea to Ukr SSR as arbitary actions carried out by dictators without the people having any say in the matter and therefore actions against the interests of the people and morally, if not technically, illegal. I would call the Belavezha accords illegal and arbitary in creating states without any plebicite, simply by dictat. The ethnic Russians living in Ukr SSR did not vote for being Ukranian and were given no choice. The so called illegal referendum in Crimea in 1994 showed what the people thought of being Ukranian, and the referendums in Crimea and Donbass last year showed what the people want. Seems odd that people in other countries can have self determination, except ethnic Russians, why is that....

Odessa at the turn of the nineteenth/twentieth century had a majority of people that told the census taker they were Russians. Now the Russians in Odessa are outnumbered by Ukrainians and other ethnic groups. Lots of towns vary over time in their ethnic makeup. At one time New Orleans was mostly French ethnics. Since then the Irish, Germans, Spanish, Italians, Anglo-Americans, and dozens of others moved in. Today it is mostly Black as the Black ethnic groups moved in from the rural areas. New Orleans has evolved into something more than French. It has established its own identity.

Kosovo was once overwhelmingly Serb. Over time the Albanians moved in until the population was overwhelmingly Albanian. The Ukraine has had similar change in its population. The Russians there are now a minority.

Pruitt

I already pointed out that people have for reasons of simplicity stated they are Ukranian in recent census. Their passport says Ukranian, yet that does not wipe out their identity as ethnic Russians. You need to explain where all the Russians in Odessa went and were the Ukranians have come from, for apart from a mass exodus of Jews after fall of Soviet Union, the population has not significantly changed.